Force play or time play?

[mbyron]

Maybe the question is this: R1 is tagged while off base. If that's the only play on him, then his out is NOT a force play. In other words, if the defense merely treats him as a runner off base, tagging him by itself does not constitute a valid appeal.

If he's tagged in order the APPEAL the missed base, then his out IS a force play.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Maybe the question is this: R1 is tagged while off base. If that's the only play on him, then his out is NOT a force play. In other words, if the defense merely treats him as a runner off base, tagging him by itself does not constitute a valid appeal.

Yes, that was Rita's OP question.

J/R has a nearly identical play (except with R1 & R3 instead of R1 & R2). The tag of R1 - who is returning to 2nd base to correct his baserunning error - is neither an appeal nor a force out, and it's a time play at the plate.

What I can't understand is: J/R says a subsequent appeal of R1's miss is not allowed. Why not? The tag of R1 is certainly part of the continuous action caused by and following the batted ball (how can it NOT be if there is a time play at the plate), so, according to MLBUM and everyone else, the defense does not lose it's right to appeal R1's miss.

BTW: Rita - great catch and thanks for initiating a discussion involving something other than clothing!

[SanDiegoSteve]

J/R would indeed be wrong in this case. The defense may legally appeal the missed base, which would result in an advantageous fourth out, and no runs score as the 3rd out would be the result of a force.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

J/R would indeed be wrong in this case. The defense may legally appeal the missed base, which would result in an advantageous fourth out, and no runs score as the 3rd out would be the result of a force.

Why would J/R be wrong? A runner who misses a base is still assumed to have touched the base until proper appeal. The runner was retreating back to second and was tagged. A tag in itself is not a proper appeal. The tag should have come with a verbal appeal as the tag was applied. Thus, the defense lost it's right to appeal. The defense erred when it tagged the runner instead of making the proper appeal first.

You cannot have the runner make two outs in this situation.

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Why would J/R be wrong? A runner who misses a base is still assumed to have touched the base until proper appeal. The runner was retreating back to second and was tagged. A tag in itself is not a proper appeal. The tag should have come with a verbal appeal as the tag was applied. Thus, the defense lost it's right to appeal. The defense erred when it tagged the runner instead of making the proper appeal first.

You cannot have the runner make two outs in this situation.

The defense does NOT lose its right to any appeals if all action is continuous action of the same play.

In this case, all of the action was after BR hit the ball. It is all part of the same play and tagging R1 does not cause the defense to lose their right to appeal. J/R is wrong if they say the defense does lose the right in this play.

And, for the post about the runner being out at 2B if he is in the vicinity, what a load of crock. If R1 is tagged while off of 2B, he is out. Not at a base, he is just out. He can be tagged while off 2B and then appealed for missing 2B. The tag is while he is off a base, the appeal is having him out at 2B.

You can't have him out at the same base if he missed it twice. For example, on a fly ball, R1 misses 2B going to 3B. Then, he misses it going back to 1B after the ball is caught. Now, the defense can't appeal both of them to get 2 outs. They can only appeal 1 miss of it and have him out 1 time. But, tagging a runner off base is not the same as calling him out at a base. Calling out at a base is a force play. Big difference.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

The defense does NOT lose its right to any appeals if all action is continuous action of the same play.

I concur and so does J/R.

From the manual: "An appeal of a runner's failure to touch or retouch can be upheld if such appeal occurs (a) while the ball is live, and (b) before the next pitch or post-continuous action play...and (c) as the first and only appeal of a certain runner's failure to touch or retouch a certain base, and (d) any appeal throw made after continuous action has ended does not become an overthrow."

In the two examples cited, all relevant conditions requisite to upholding an appeal have clearly been met. J/R contradicts itself in denying the appeals in those two examples.

[victory]

For my newbie brain: In the case where R1 actually touches third, then heads back to second, the force play is on and the run does not score - right? Also, say in the case where R1 touches third, coach tells him to return, and he breaks for second but a tag is made on him, I believe the run would still not score correct?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Why would J/R be wrong?

It wouldn't be the first time.

It's (relatively) rare, but it happens.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

I concur and so does J/R.

From the manual: "An appeal of a runner's failure to touch or retouch can be upheld if such appeal occurs (a) while the ball is live, and (b) before the next pitch or post-continuous action play...and (c) as the first and only appeal of a certain runner's failure to touch or retouch a certain base, and (d) any appeal throw made after continuous action has ended does not become an overthrow."

In the two examples cited, all relevant conditions requisite to upholding an appeal have clearly been met. J/R contradicts itself in denying the appeals in those two examples.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It wouldn't be the first time.

It's (relatively) rare, but it happens.

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Why would J/R be wrong?

See above posts.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

BTW: Rita - great catch and thanks for initiating a discussion involving something other than clothing!

I thought that it was a good deal on some great shirts, and I wanted everyone to know about it. I'm sorry I didn't clear it with you, first. Please make a list of your personal standards and preferences, and I will make a better effort to avoid offending you.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

I thought that it was a good deal on some great shirts, and I wanted everyone to know about it. I'm sorry I didn't clear it with you, first. Please make a list of your personal standards and preferences, and I will make a better effort to avoid offending you.

I wasn't offended and I have no problem with your post about a great shirt deal. I was merely welcoming a discussion about baseball. Maybe you should switch to decaf.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

I wasn't offended and I have no problem with your post about a great shirt deal. I was merely welcoming a discussion about baseball. Maybe you should switch to decaf.

I tried that on Thanksgiving weekend when my stepmother forced it down my throat, and I almost fell asleep behind the wheel. I'll just stop at one espresso and see how that works. ... My bad.

[greymule]

In the OP, the only possible reason the runner could be returning to 2B is that he failed to touch it and figures the defense will appeal. I would consider the tag out an obvious appeal play (like a runner obviously off a base when a line drive is caught by an infielder) and nullify the run.

Otherwise, even after the runner was put out for the third out, I would allow the appeal on the advantageous 4th out as Steve says.

The statement in the OP, "R1 never legally advanced to 2B," is wrong.

I'm not going to dig out my J/R, but I can't believe the J/R would not allow the advantageous appeal. I suspect the OP is being confused with that play where the sliding (forced) runner misses 2B but passes it and is then tagged out reaching back for the bag.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by greymule

In the OP, the only possible reason the runner could be returning to 2B is that he failed to touch it and figures the defense will appeal. I would consider the tag out an obvious appeal play (like a runner obviously off a base when a line drive is caught by an infielder) and nullify the run.

Otherwise, even after the runner was put out for the third out, I would allow the appeal on the advantageous 4th out as Steve says.

The statement in the OP, "R1 never legally advanced to 2B," is wrong.

I'm not going to dig out my J/R, but I can't believe the J/R would not allow the advantageous appeal. I suspect the OP is being confused with that play where the sliding (forced) runner misses 2B but passes it and is then tagged out reaching back for the bag.

According to J/R re: Missed Base Appeals:

A missed base appeal of first (rounded), second or third occurs only when action is relaxed and (a) the allegedly missed base is tagged, or (b) the suspect runner is tagged on another base.

NOTE: If a suspect runner is tagged off base, there is a play and an out, but not an appeal; a subsequent appeal of such runner's missed base is not allowed.

There are two relevant examples (edited for brevity).

1. Missed second base, not an appeal, unrelaxed action: R1, R3, two outs, hit and run. The batter singles and R1 passes, but does not touch, second base. F4 recognizes the miss as does R1, who stops his advance to third and scrambles back toward second. F4 gloves F9's throw and tags second before R1's return. Because action is unrelaxed, there is not an appeal. In regard to R3, if there is a tag of R1, there is a time play. This is not an appeal, therefore it is not a force out. An appeal of R1's initial miss of second base is not allowed (Emphasis added)

2. Missed second base, not an appeal, unrelaxed action. R3, R1, two outs. Ground ball gloved by F6, who attempts to tag the sliding R1 instead of the base. The tag is missed, and R1 slides past the base without touching it. As R1 scrambles back to the base, F6 tags him (not an appeal, not a force out) before he can return. R3 scored before the tag was applied (time play). The defense wishes to appeal that R1 missed second base (advantageous 4th out) to negate the run. The appeal is not allowed. (emphasis added)

[Publius]

Originally Posted by greymule

In the OP, the only possible reason the runner could be returning to 2B is that he failed to touch it and figures the defense will appeal. I would consider the tag out an obvious appeal play (like a runner obviously off a base when a line drive is caught by an infielder) and nullify the run.

I think grey's interp is what RefMag is saying. R1 stopping, returning, and being tagged "just after R2 crossed the plate" suggests to me he hadn't made a whole hell of a lot of progress toward third, so I don't see it that way.

What I was taught is you can't appeal a missed base by a runner when he is put out AT that base. That is, if R1 is tagged out beyond 2nd base and not in proximity of it (I use the cutout as a guide for "proximity"; some guys I work with and respect say even farther than that), the defense can appeal the missed base for an advantageous apparent fourth out. R1 gains 2nd base when he passes it; once he passes it, the force is removed and if he is subsequently tagged beyond the base, it's a time play. If the tag occurs not in proximity of the base, the defense can appeal the miss for a run-negating force-out. If he's tagged out AT the base (inside the cutout for me) trying to return, no appeal is allowed.

It was explained to me, "He can be out at third, then out at second to supersede it, but he can't be out twice at second. When he's out at second, he's out at second."

The rules citations in the case play say the run does not score because the third out was a force play. How the case play arrived at a force out because a runner was tagged beyond a base he had passed, but not touched, is beyond me unless they rule the tag was a proper appeal, an interpretation with which I cannot abide.